S. K. Sen, C.J.—The writ petitioners in these writ petitions are licensees for country liquor/foreign liquor and beers. Since common issues, namely, claiming renewal of their licences granted to them till 31.3.2002 for another period of one year from 1.4.2002 and for quashing the notice dated 18.3.2002 published in daily newspaper (Dainik Jagran, Gorakhpur) are involved in these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. That apart, a large number of writ petitions involving the same questions of facts and law have been instituted in this Court and they have been connected with these petitions. Therefore, all those connected writ petitions will be governed by the decision in these writ petitions and they are also disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The case of the petitioners is that some of the licensees were granted licences in the year 2000 and some of them in the year 2001 for a period of one year or part thereof, renewable on the conditions to be decided by the State Government. According to relevant Rules governing the grant of licence in respect of country made liquor, foreign liquor, and beer, to be discussed hereinafter, the licence granted to the writ petitioners may be renewed for such period and on such terms and conditions as to be decided by the State Government, from time to time. The State Government, however, had already issued advertisement on 18th March, 2002, in several newspapers inviting applications for grant of licence for retail outlet for sale of beer, country made liquor and foreign liquor. Some of the writ petitioners applied for renewal of their licences. Their case has not been considered. However, advertisement has been issued for issuance of fresh licence.

3. When the writ petitions came up for admission on 21.3.2002 before a Division Bench, they were admitted and an interim order to the following effect was passed :

“Be that as it may, we are not inclined to enter into the controversy. We are of the view that the interest of justice shall be best served if those petitioners who have already applied for renewal and those whose applications were not entertained apply within 23rd March, 2002, their cases for renewal is considered by the State Government in accordance with law and appropriate decision is taken by State Government by 25th March, 2002. In the event of refusal to grant renewal the State Government to record reasons for the same.

Pursuant to advertisement the draw of lots shall take place as fixed and the result shall be declared, but no contract shall be executed till 5.4.2002. It is made clear that this order is restricted to the case of writ petitioners only. The question of renewal shall be decided by the Secretary, Excise Department, U. P. Government, Lucknow.

The case shall be taken up on 1.4.2002 at 3 p.m. as specially fixed part heard matter.”

4. On 1st April, 2002, when the matter again came up for hearing, the following interim order was passed :

“Learned Advocate General submits that by way of interim measure, it should be provided that the petitioners who moved applications by 23.3.2002, are not required to deposit any money at the moment.

The order passed by Secretary, Department of Excise, State of U. P. on 25.3.2002 has not been communicated to the petitioners. It shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners by 2.4.2002.

Status quo as on 31.3.2002 shall continue till 5.4.2002 so far as the aforesaid petitioners are concerned.

The matter will be taken up on 3.4.2002 at 2 p.m. as part heard.

Let certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges today.”

5. Again, the matter came up for hearing on 4th April, 2002, before a Division Bench consisting two of us, and it had passed the following orders :

“Shri S. C. Sinha, Joint Director, Government Printing Press, Allahabad, is present in the Court in pursuance of our order passed today before recess.

He submits that Director, Gover